July 16th, 2002


I don't understand people

"WTC site plans unveiled"

I don't think it mentions it in that article, but in one of the articles yesterday they said that there were no plans to replace the WTC itself because, among other reasons, the victems' families have demanded that the footprints be set aside for a memorial.

Maybe i don't understand because i've never lost anyone to tragic unforseen circumstances and such. I kind of understand the desire for the memorial, however if i'd died in the attack (and could direct things from the afterlife of course =) or if someone i'd known had died in the attack, i would think setting aside the footprint for a memorial was just fine, as long as the memorial was planed to be on top of the two 120 story towers that were going to be built on the site.

I must have a defiant nature or something, cause my thoughts run to the line that if they knock it down, then we should just build it back bigger, better, and higher. Short of bombing the fuck out of the people who actually planed the attack (we seem to be having trouble actually tracking them down, but we've had a lot of luck bombing random Afghanistan villages, UN groups, and Canadians!) i think that's really the best response we could make.

I fail to see how people can be babbling on about how we can't do X or Y because "then the terrorists will already have won!" and yet even consider the possibility of not rebuilding the WTC. Up until the terrorist attacks i couldn't really have cared less about the WTC, but now that "they" want to get rid of it it actaully matters somewhat to me. Too bad i'm gonna get overruled by all the people who think that the only possible memorial is a big field of open ground.
  • Current Mood
    annoyed annoyed


I seem to have gotten into a political commentary mood today.

This article talks bout how neither the girl in the Pledge of Allegiance case nor her mom thing that there is anything wrong with the "Under God" bit of the Pledge. They show a lot of quotes to support this, including one from the girl, "'that's OK, Mom, because even if they do change the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll still say "under God," and no one will know that I'm breaking the law."

The fact that the mom is a Christian and the father an Athiest complicates the issue, however the basis for the whole thing is that for better or worse, parents are supposed to be able to freely advocate whatever religion and/or system of morality they want to their children. The fact that the mom happens to be a Christian does not make it okay for the state to help her out in that regard! The mom may happen to have custody, but regardless, it's a matter for the parents to deal with, but not for the state to advocate one side or the other!

Furthermore, and i'm overstating things a bit here to make my point, the fact that the brainwashing worked does not justify the brainwashing!

I wish the media, the politicians, _someone_ would get a fucking clue about what this case is supposed to be about!

I don't know what the dad is thinking, but he's stated that this case is for himself, and not his daughter. So i would suspect that he feels, or at least that he should argue, that he's having a tough enough time imparting his own religion (or lack of it) to his daughter given that the mom has custody and disagrees with him, without the state also throwing it's weight in. What the mom feels or what the daughter feels does not fucking matter! He has the right to pass on his beliefs, to the extent that his daughter will listen, without the state getting involved and trying to convince her otherwise!
  • Current Mood
    angry angry